What did Kate Kelly do between May 22 and June 8?

[_Kishkumen]

Recently I attended a stake conference at which Elder Oaks spoke, he explained that the reason that stake had been chose for him to speak at was that it had be 23 years since the last time an apostle had spoken in the stake (at least my memory says it was 23 years in any case it was decades as I remember) so what are the chances that it is a coincidence that Elder Ballard and Clayton show up in KK's area just at the same time her local leaders decide to take action against her?
Not much in my opinion.

Not only that, but Clayton actually called what Kelly was doing "apostasy" at that meeting.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

All I know is that Ballard and Clayton were the ones who went to Virginia right before the letter affirming the "informal" discipline was sent.

This fact is what leads me to strongly suspect that Wheatley's May 22 letter was only sent to facilitate what the leaders were really after: Kate's excommunication. First, there was a significant delay in sending the May 22 letter (17 days AFTER the actual meeting on May 5), and "informal probation" is so, well, informal, that such a letter is usually not sent (the CHI says a bishop should not even keep notes or other records about "informal probation"). Methinks that when Ballard and Clayton informed Wheatley and Harrison, among many others, at the May 17 leadership meeting that OW is "apostate," they knew (possibly even were directly told) that they had to do more to reign Kate in. That's when Wheatley decided to draft the May 22 (which included restrictions that far exceeded a case of "informal probation"), and, thereafter (just 17 days!), he colluded with Harrison in proceeding 'full steam ahead' with excommunication. The whole thing stinks of ecclesiastical abuse, in my opinion. I know the LDS Church institution is neither a democracy nor subject to constitutional restrictions, but the lack of even a scintilla of due process and fair play in Kate's case should trouble the sensibilities of every reasonable human being (Mormon or not). Ok, rant over.

[_consiglieri]

Not to mention it appears top church leaders had their PR department lie about their involvement in the proceedings.

Thanks for the details in the OP, Rollo.

Very illuminating.

[_Kishkumen]

This fact is what leads me to strongly suspect that Wheatley's May 22 letter was only sent to facilitate what the leaders were really after: Kate's excommunication. First, there was a significant delay in sending the May 22 letter (17 days AFTER the actual meeting on May 5), and "informal probation" is so, well, informal, that such a letter is usually not sent (the CHI says a bishop should not even keep notes or other records about "informal probation"). Methinks that when Ballard and Clayton informed Wheatley and Harrison, among many others, at the May 17 leadership meeting that OW is "apostate," they knew (possibly even were directly told) that they had to do more to reign Kate in. That's when Wheatley decided to draft the May 22 (which included restrictions that far exceeded a case of "informal probation"), and, thereafter (just 17 days!), he colluded with Harrison in proceeding 'full steam ahead' with excommunication. The whole thing stinks of ecclesiastical abuse, in my opinion. I know the LDS Church institution is neither a democracy nor subject to constitutional restrictions, but the lack of even a scintilla of due process and fair play in Kate's case should trouble the sensibilities of every reasonable human being (Mormon or not). Ok, rant over.

No need to apologize. You have keyed in to exactly the same points I find suspicious but have provided a better description. Kelly's local leaders put her on informal probation on May 5. Informal probation may take various forms, but the probation itself is temporary, a kind of warning, and, as you point out, NOT TO BE RECORDED. After Seventy Clayton arrives in Virginia, calling the movement for the ordination of women "apostasy", and shortly thereafter Kelly is sent a letter affirming this informal probation in contravention of Church policy.

The whole thing stinks.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks Rollo, you've made some devastating observations and I agree the biggest problem here is lack of due process. It's disturbing that even the hint of process is forbidden knowledge for all but leaders, I speak of the CHI, and therefore, no one can be held accountable.

Is there anything that can be done, Rollo? If an SP that is the least bit sympathetic were to contact his escalation point at the COB, do you think that could help a situation where Clayton or anyone else with nothing to do officially with the region in question pressures the local leaders, and the local leaders just assume this is "coming from the top"?

[_RockSlider]

It seems the timing could not have been worse for the church. Another month of so, KK would have been out of country, but no here she is in the heart of the Mormon Corridor with lots of local and national reporters beating down her door.

Top down "influence" seems to have backfired timing wise in this case.

[_beanboots]

This may have already been discussed on the "Did Kate lie?" thread; if so, I apologize.

I'm just trying to figure out what Kate Kelly did between May 22 (the date of her SP's letter confirming "informal probation") and June 8 (the date of her bishop's letter scheduling a council on June 22 to consider her "disfellowshipment or excommunication, on the grounds of apostasy"). How, over the course of just 17 days, did Kate's local leaders jump from the least severe of all Church discipline (i.e., informal probation) to the most severe (i.e., excommunication)?

We know from Stake Pres. Wheatley's May 22 letter to Kate, that during a May 5 meeting between Wheatley, his counselor, and Kate, she was placed on "informal probation." Apparently nothing changed over the next 17 days from May 5, because the letter "confirming" this informal probation and the terms thereof was dated May 22.

We know, also, from Bishop Harrison's June 23 letter (in which he informs Kate of her excommunication) that he knew of the May 5 meeting with Wheatley (and "fully" agreed with the meeting being held) and its outcome (i.e., informal probation).

So what exactly did Kate do between May 22 (the date of Wheatley's letter) and June 8 (the date of Harrison's letter) -- JUST 17 DAYS! -- to cause the bishop to decide the stake president's "informal probation" was insufficient (even though Harrison said he was fully in agreement with that May 5 meeting and its outcome) and that Kate should now face excommunication?

I looked around but could not find any answer. The bishop's June 23 letter (announcing the excommunication and related restrictions) doesn't say, but leaves this one hint about after Kate was placed on informal probation: "Yet, you have persisted undeterred." Hmm, what does this mean? What did Kate do after May 22 and before June 8 that led to this conclusion? I looked on the OW blog, but the only entry I could find between May 22 and June 8 was a short post (on May 30) by Kate praising Michael Otterson's "open letter" about women issues published on the Times & Seasons website on May 29. Certainly that brief and civil post by Kate could not be the catalyst for excommunication.

The bishop's letter also mentioned Kate's actions during April GC and OW publishing "Six Discussions" on its website, but these all occurred BEFORE Wheatley's May 22 letter confirming Kate's informal probation. So, as far as I can tell, Kate did NOTHING between May 22 and June 8 to trigger an escalation from the lowest form of discipline to the highest.

So why did the bishop state that Kate "persisted undeterred" after being placed on informal probation? I honestly don't know, but I personally would bet that further instructions from Wheatley's and Harrison's file leaders were given during that 17-day period, explaining the haste in which Harrison scheduled a council to consider excommunication. Perhaps their hearing OW branded as an "apostate" group by Elder Clayton at the May 17 leadership meeting in D.C. (which both Wheatley and Harrison would have attended) had something to do with it, and Wheatley's May 22 letter was nothing more than mere formality (i.e., Wheatley had to confirm what happened at the May 5 meeting in order to 'dot the i's and cross the t's' so he and Harrison could then move forward to greater sanctions). In any event, I find the whole timeline of discipline VERY odd and suggesting that some shenanigans were going on behind the scenes (i.e., headquarters was not happy with Wheatley merely putting Kate on "informal probation," and demanded more severe discipline be applied, despite the fact that Kate had done nothing since being placed on "informal probation" just 17 days before).

I guess we'll never know everything that happened, but I'm pretty convinced high Church leaders played a real role in how things turned out for Kate. Just another example of FUBAR.

One word:

Discussions.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

One word:

Discussions.

Possibly. However, OW's public announcement of the upcoming "Six Discussions" was made on May 1, and the first two of the "Six Discussions" were published on the OW site on May 15. Thus, it seems to me that Wheatley and Harrison would have known about the "Six Discussions" before Wheatley sent his May 22 letter confirming Kate's "informal probation." Moreover, as chronologically presented in Harrison's June 23 letter to Kate, Wheatley and Harrison knew of the May 1 announcement of the "Six Discussions" prior to Wheatley's May 5 meeting with Kate (when she was placed on "informal probation"). Again, the entire timeline (as presented in Harrison's June 23 "excommunication" letter) smells to high heaven.

And, by the way, I've read the first two of the "Six Discussions" on the OW site (they are the only discussions published so far), and I found them very benign. They are not the type of "discussions" as that word is used in Mormon vernacular (i.e., Mormon missionary proselyting-style "discussions"), but, rather, are more like "discussions" intended to initiate a group conversation of issues relating to women's ordination (both pros and cons, and participants on both sides are invited to participate for nothing more than an open and civil conversation of ideas on the topic). Harrison's characterization in his June 23 letter that the "Six Discussions" are "intended to proselyte others and to persuade them to support your particular interpretation of Church doctrine" (a direct quote) is a real stretch based on my reading of the only two discussions released so far. His description of the OW "discussions" is so far afield that I'm left to wonder if he has even read those two OW "discussions" available online.

In any event, I don't believe that Wheatley's and Harrison's view of OW's "Six Discussions" ALONE led to Harrison's hasty scheduling of the disciplinary council for "apostasy." It may have been headquarters' reading of the "Six Discussions" that was the catalyst, but this only supports my belief that the 'warp speed' escalation in Kate's discipline (starting with the most lenient form on May 22 and jumping to the most serious sanction available on June 8 -- AGAIN, JUST 17 DAYS during which it appears Kate did NOTHING!) can only be explained by the Brethren/headquarters intervening and directing Wheatley and Harrison to start over and this time do it right and throw Kate out of the Church.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Not to mention it appears top church leaders had their PR department lie about their involvement in the proceedings.

I don't think there's any doubt about this (not for me, at least). They can 'spin' or parse words all they want, but a lie is a lie is a lie ...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Is there anything that can be done, Rollo?

Not that I know of, because it is my firm belief that Kate's discipline was being directed (or at least HEAVILY influenced from the very top). I do remember, however, back in 1993 with the September Six controversy. Steve Benson recounted a conversation he had with Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell (I think) in which they revealed that Boyd Packer was directly behind the disciplinary councils held for some of the Six (may have been Quinn and/or Toscano, but I'm not sure), and they admitted to Benson that this action was OUTSIDE Church disciplinary protocol, but that they couldn't "stage manage a grizzly bear" (or something like that). This indicated internal tensions when some at headquarters direct what should be a strictly local disciplinary action.

If an SP that is the least bit sympathetic were to contact his escalation point at the COB, do you think that could help a situation where Clayton or anyone else with nothing to do officially with the region in question pressures the local leaders, and the local leaders just assume this is "coming from the top"?

I seem to recall the story that Quinn's SP at the time Packer first tried to force a disciplinary council against Quinn, refused to do so and, shortly thereafter, he was released. It was only a later SP (also a CES employee and who didn't know Quinn at all) who did as he was told by Packer and ex'ed Quinn (and admitting during the council that Packer was, indeed, personally involved in bringing the action). So I doubt even a sympathetic SP (or other leader) could do anything to stop discipline once headquarters is in a froth about it. Just my $.02.